y"^<^. 



-V. 







, » • »* c- 

,f5 Ci - 






.0 w- 



•> ^^.. "-^li^i 



^ '*m^>° ...>^ 






o^ * 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. CHARLES W. UPHAM, OF MASS., 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 10, 1854. 



The House being in theConimitteeof the Whole 
on the state of the Union — 

JVIr. UPHAM said: 

Mr. CHAIRMA^f: In taking the floor at this time, 
after the body has been in session nine hours and 
a half, I can assure the committee that it is ex- 
ceedingly disagreeable to me to make a continued 
demand upon their already exhausted attention. 
Having understood, in the earlier stages of the 
discussion, from the friends of the bill, that an 
opportunity would be given to all to speak upon 
the question, I have not allowed myself to be in the 
way of gentlemen who were impatient to express 
their sentiments, and should not now. engage in 
the debate, were I not under an impression that 
some points, vital to the argument, have not as 
yet been adequately developed. The question 
ought not to be brought to a final vote without a 
full comprehension of its real merits, of all its ele- 
ments, of its origin, history, bearings, and effects. 
The preeminently distinguished member from 
Missouri [Mr. Benton] has touched briefly upon 
the line of argument which I propose, at some 
length, to spread out and enforce. The learned 
gentleman from Virginia, who first addressed the 
committee to-day, [Mr. Bayly,] also adduced some 
important facts in support of the views which I 
propose to exhibit. • 

1 hold, sir, that this bill contemplates, and will, 
if it becomes a law, constitute a radical and vital 
change in the policy upon which the Union of 
these States was originally formed, and by which 
its affairs have been administered throughout its 
entire history. It will be an abandonment of the 
course that has been pursued from the first. The 
country will swing from her moorings, and we 
shall embark, with all the precious interests, all 
the glorious recollections, and all the magnificent 
prospects of this vast republican empire, upon 
an untraversed, unknown, and, it may v/ell be 
feared, stormy, if not fatal sea. 

In order to justify and illustrate this view of the 
proposed attempt to repeal the Missouri compro- 
mise,! shall compress into the narrowest possible 
compass, as the short hour allowed compels, an 



historical statement of the policy upon which the 
American Union was founded, to which it has 
adhered through every period of its existence, 
which the fathers believed, and found to be, abso- 
lutely necessary, and which their sons have faith- 
fully maintained and solemnly reiterated in each 
successive generation. 

The idea of a Federal Union, that is, of a con- 
federation of political communities, each still pre- 
serving its distinct existence, was first developed 
on a limited sphere, and in a very imperfect way, 
by the New England Colonies, at an early stage 
of their existence. It was recommended by 
William Penn in 1700, particularly delineated by 
Daniel Coxe, an eminent colonial politician of New 
Jersey, in 1722, in his very curious book, entitled 
"A description of Carolana, by the Spanish called 
Florida, by the French La Louisiane, with a 
map of Carolana, and the river Meschacerbe," 
and first reduced to practice, on a large scale, by 
Benjamin Franklin. He urged it in publications 
in the Philadelphia Gazette, enforced in his usual 
style of practical wisdom and sagacity, and illus- 
trated by a wood cut, representing a snake sep- 
arated into several parts, with this motto, "Join 
or die." He succeeded in getting a Congress con- 
vened at Albany, at which delegates from seven 
Colonies were present, that is, New Hampshire, 
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New 
York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. 

This first attempt of a general North American 
Union occurred in 1754^just one hundred years 
ago. Nothing of importance immediately resulted 
from the meeting, except the idea which it sug- 
gested to the general sense of the country, that 
such a union was practicable. 

As the revolutionary warcame on, the Colonies, 
rising to the great ^encounter, at once resorted to 
a Confederation. "While the war continued the 
external pressure kept them together; but the 
moment that pressure was removed, it became 
evident thatit would be difficult, if not impossible, 
to hold them together. 

The historical fact that the institution of slavery 
was, at that time, the great obstacle in the way of 



^i 






union, is what I desire, as the first point in my 
Rrgument, to impress upon the committee. 

We sometimes hear the seniiment expressed, 
that the excitement and (iistui-baPiCe produced by 
the slavery qijestion is of recent or modern 
growth. This is an error, and it is an error vital 
to the question oefore us. As much agitation and 
ns much difficulty v/ere occasioned by it, at the 
time to which I am referring, to say tl;e least, as 
in our day. Resistance against foreign oppression 
naturally led to the consideration of oppression at 
home, and a movement resuking in its abolition, 
wherever it could easily be d.me, was quickly 
brought to a head, and a broad line of distinction 
was soon drawn between^he Sfates that retained, 
and those v..-hich had abolished, tlie institution. 
At the period of the formation of the Constitution 
this distinction threatened to present ^n insur- 
mountable obstacle to t,he establishment of a per- 
manent union. 

In his notes of the debates of 'the Federal Con- 
vention of 1787, Robert Yates, a delegate in that 
body from ihe Stars of ISTew York, quotes Mr.. 
Madison as having used this ]:mguage: 

"The grttat d.iiiiier to oar G^noral Govenitnent is tlic 
great snmherii aiid iioriiiern interests of xhc contir.eHt hv\n<r 
opposed to cacli oilier. Look attlie votes in Cor.gress,aiid 
most of tlieni stand dividid by th»'. geography of the coun- 
try, not acciiiding to the size of the. Status." 

The conflict between- the tv/o sections of the 
country has never reached' a srreater height than 
in. that very convention. I believe the nearest 
approach to an absolute rupture, in our day, wa.s 
n few years ago, when Delegates in these Halis 
from the South threatened, in ascertain event, to 
withdraw from their seats, return to their several 
St;tte.s, and set up for themselves. 

iVlr. jNIadison informs us that theft)nowing pas^ 
Bage to.tk place in the convention of 1787, on the 
12'h of July. 1787, on the question of the basis of 
representation of the southern or slaveholding 
Slates in the popular branch (f Congress: 

" Mr. Davie, a dolfgate from North Cariiiiiia, said ' it 
was li!f;li tiiru: riow til speak oiu. He saw liiat it was meant 
by some geotleineii to deprive the .soutl'.i^rii States of any 
eliare of r»'pr(*seiilii;ion for their blacks. He was sure that 
North Carohiia would never confederate on any terms 
that did not r.ate them, at least, as three fifths. If tlie 
ea>tern Stale.? m? hm;, therefore, to exclude them altogether, 
llie l)usiiie!-s was at an end.' 

♦• GouVf-riiciir Mirris, a delegate from' Pennsylv.Tnia, 
paid, in reply, that ' Me eamc here to form a compact for 
the good of Aiiieriea. He was ready to do so with all the 
States. He limped and helieved that all would enter into 
sucli a conipaet. If iliey would not, he was ready to join 
with any States that would.' " 

Whoever exannines the Madison papers, and 
other memorials of that daj', will admit, at once, 
that the struggle between the two sections was as 
Etrenuous then as it has ever heen, and v/ill concede 
the next point I desire to make in my present ar- 
gument? nam*.! y, tliat the Constitution never could 
have been adopted by the States, or even framed 
by the convention; the present Government could 
not have been established, nor even the Confeder- 
ation long been maintained, had not certain com- 
pacts and rnutuil engagements been arranged and 
solemnly agreed to, to be forever binding between 
and upon thp two great sections. 

1 now de.=iire, Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of 
calm and impar'ial history, to present to the com- 
mittee a lirief s'atement of those compacts and 
engagements — compacts and engagements, sir, 
upon which the Union and Constitution were then 



I founded — under which we havegrown to ourpreg- 
' ent greatness as a first rate power — by virtue of 
I which a comprehensive patriotism, even now, \n 
li this moment of controversy, binding our hearts 
i together on this floor as the representatives of one 
I mighty people, has war.med into a generous, en- 
! during, and noble passion, but all of which, as I 
shall finally show, you are about to eradicate and 
cast away forever by the passage of this bill. 
I At the close of the revolutionary war, after a 
sharp and persevering contest, and the failure of 
\ some other proposed methodsof valuation, it was 
'agreed, in the old Congress, on the 1st of April, 
1783, in apportioning the general burdens iiport 
; the different States, to adopt population as the 
i basis, and count only three fifths of the slaves. 
j On the final question establishing this ratio of slave 
' enumeration, Rhode island voted no. Mas&acliu- 
! sens was divided. All the 'othei' Stales vo'ed t/i/e. 
I This was the firstcompromi«e ever made bet v/een 
{the .slaveholding a.nd the free States. 
I On the 1st of March, 1784, Virginia executed a 
[cession to the United States of her territory nonli 
I and west of the Ohio river, comprising an area 
greater than all that rernained to her, that is, 
greater than the present States of Virginia and 
Kentucky. The other States having proprietary 
interests there f tihiv.'sd tbs wise and liberal ex- 
ample of Virginia. The whole territory north- 
west of the Ohio river thus becairie the coiTimon 
property of the Uiiiied States in Congre.ss as- 
sembled. It w&i! all the territory they then pos- 
sessed in common, and silth&tatiy one imagined, 
at that time, they ever would possess. 

The possession of terrilory in common is con- 
trary to the geniuij of our Federal Union, and 
nece.saarily involves the twosections of the coun- 
try in conflict. The question Is — not whether slave 
labor shaii go with free labor on'tqual terms into 
I the con:Knon territory, but — it being well .under- 
stood then, and ns all subsequent experience has 
constantly demonstrated, that they cannot possi- 
1 bly both go, as one or the other must necessarily 
be excluded — whether the territory shall be occu- 
pied by free labor or by slave labor. The issue 
v/as at once made. A struggle forthwith arose 
between the two sections v/hich form of labor 
should occujiy and possess the Northwest Terri- 
tory. The struggle continued for years with un- 
abated energy and determination, and never could 
have been arrested, had not a.compromise, in the 
nature of a solenm and perpetual compact, been 
agreed upon by the parties. 

[n order that this great compromise, which was 
t}ie basis on which the American Union was con- 
structed — the only ba.'^is upon which a Union 
could have been formed, but which the Nebraska 
bill not only violates, but utterly repudiates in 
express terms — may be understood, 1 must be 
allowed, at this point, to go somewhat into detail. 
Immediately at'ter the Northwest Territory had 
become the property of the United States, in Con- 
gress assembled, that body applied itself to pro- 
vide for its settlement and organization. Reports 
and bills were lirought in for the management and 
disposal of its lands, and for the institution cf 
civil and political society among those who might 
settle upon them. On the 1st of March, 1731, the 
very day of the cession from Virginia, a com- 
mittee, consist iog of Messrs. Jefferson, of that 
State, Chase of Maryland, and Howell of Rhode 



JUN 



ifUtt 



Island, reported a plan for the temporary govern- 
ment of the Western Territory The report svas 
written by Jefferson, and contained the following 
provision: , 

"After tl;e ycnr 1800 of the Ciirislian era, then? shall he 
neither slavery nor )iivnlu7itary servitude in any of Ihe said 
States, otherwise ihaii in punisliinent of crimes, whereof 
the party shall liave been duly ouiiviotcd to have been per- 
sonally {guilty." 

On the ID'.h of April, 1784, this proposition of 
Mr. Jefferson was voted down. On the 16ih of 
March, 1785, Rufu.s King, a Delegate from New 
Yorlc, renewed the proposition, but it met a sim- 
ilar fate. Any one who examines the Joiti nals, 
will see that the question tlius raisei,!, namely, 
whether slaveholders should be allowed logo into 
the common teiriloiial possessions of the United 
States carrying tliat species ofproperty with them, 
and holding it there, dtfied the solution of the old 
Congress, and that for ihrte long years, in unin- 
termitted session, that body made no approaches 
vihatever towards its setiiement; the two sections 
of the country stood arrayed in unwavering and 
imiButable opposition to each other. 

in the mean time tlie Confederation was grow- 
iiig more and more feeble and inadequate to its 
objects every day. Ih.e experiment of a Gov- 
ernnnent embracing all the States, usider an effi- 
cient Administration, wa^^ evidently beginning to 
fail. In this crisis a convention was called to 
devise a firmer uiiion, and organize a government 
that would hold the Stales together, and save the 
country from dismemberment and ruin. 

The convention assembled in Philadelphia on 
Uie 14ih of May, 1767. The Congress of the Con- 
federation was sitting at the same time in New 
York. 

The antagonism between the slaveholding and 
free States was found to be as irreconcilable and 
immitigable in the convention as in the Congress. 
It soon became evident that neither body could 
solve the problem. 

The question of the estimate to be made of slaves, 
atid which, in reference to taxation, had been ad- 
justed in the manner I have described several years 
oefore in the old Coni;ress, ciime up again in the 
convention in another bearing. It was necessary 
to arrange a basis for a House of Representa- 
tives. It was admitted that population was the 
oniy practicable measure that could be devised; 
and the question was, how shall slaves be counted 
in apportioning representation in the House? 
When taxes were to be apportioned upon popula- 
tion in the old Congress, the southern delegates 
had maintained that slaves were mere property, 
not persons, and therefore not to be counted at all. 
Tiie northern delegates had contended, on the 
other hand, that tiiey were not property, liul per- 
sons; and that, therefore, they all ought to be 
counted. But when, in the convention, political 
power was to be apportioned in a House of Rep- 
resentatives, both sectioiis at ones reversed posi- 
tions. Tlie South contended that slaves were 
persons, and ought all to be counted; and the 
North insisted that they were mere property, arid 
ought not to be counted at all! Both sides ad- 
hered to their ground with unyielding pertinacity. 
Months passed afier monthd, but no progress was 
made in the work of cor;ciliation — nothing was 
settled, and nothing toucliina; at all the points of 
difference appeared to be in the way of approach- 
ing a settlement. 



The two bodies continued their unavailing labors 
— the old Congress in New York, the convention 
in Philadelr.hin. The great obstacle loan adjust- 
ment was the very question now i>elbre us. The 
slave States claimed the right of icijin^ with their 
institution into the Northwest Territory. I do 
not think that any one tlien took tiie ground of 
" squatter sovereigntj'." That is a discovery of 
the political luminaries of our daj'. But the gen- 
eral right, upon the principles of f rpial ju.stice, 
cotitended for by my honorable friend from North 
Carolina, [Mr. Kerr,] of a slaveholderfo go with 
his slaves into the common unoccupied territory 
of the Union, was persisted in by the southern 
delegates; ant], ;!u:ely, with as good reason then 
as now. The largest part of that common terri- 
tory originally belongtd to Virginia. She had 
just ceded it, as a free gift, to the United States. 
It was hard to deny to Virginians the right of 
crossing their own Ohio to its opposite ban.k, into 
what but a few days before had been their own 
territory, v.Mth their pergonal and donjestic prop- 
erty. But the people of the free States were they 
resolved, as I believe they now are, and trust then 
ever will be, that this continent shall not be envel- 
oped in slavery, and that a limit shall be put to its 
extension. The coniroversy was irreconcilable. 

I maintain, looking at the subject not as a poli- 
tician, but as a historian, that the Con:;titution 
could not have been formed, the Confederation 
could not have been preserved, and the States 
coul& not have continued under one governrnent, 
had not a compromise in tlie nature of a compact 
been made. Such a compromise or compact was 
made. It is tlie basis upon wliich the Constitu- 
tion was confstructed, and on which it has stood 
from that day to this, but which the bill before U3 
proposes to repudiate, repeal, annul, and over- 
throw. 

The secret history of the transaction is not 
yet revealed — perhaps never will be. The facts, 
so far as they are yet known, are these: On the 
9th of July, 1787, in the old Congress, tlie subr 
ject of the establishment of a civil government in 
the Northwest Ter.itory was again taken ii|i, and 
referred to a committee of five, of which Mr. 
Nicholas, of Virginia, was chairman, and Nathan 
Dane, of Massachusetts, a member. On the 11th 
of July, only two days afterwards, this committee 
reported the celebrated instrument since known 
as the "Ordinance of 1787." It contains the 
clause forbidding the extension of slavery into 
that Territory — the very clause, substantially, 
which Thomas Jefferson had endeavored in vain 
to persuade the same body to ado|)t; which Rufus 
King had also advocated in vain; and which, for 
more than three years, the slaveh"lding represent- 
atives had constantly resisted, with prompt and 
inflexible determination and unanimity. But now, 
the very next day after it had been reported, they 
unanimously and insiantly accepted and agreed 
to it — every Soutliern vote stands recorded in the 
nfiirmative; indeed, every vote, North and South, 
except that of a single delegate from New York, 
Roliert Yates. 

Why thi.s sudden, utter, ant' universal change? 
It was because there was attached to the restric- 
tion an obligation on the past of the States that 
might be formed ' ithin the Territory, to permit 
the reclamation of fugitive slaves — an idea not 
broached before in either the Congress or the con- 



vention, and not known to the law of nations or 
the comity of States. It was evidently the con- 
sideration olTered by the free States to the slav* 
States, and accepted by the latter, as an equiva- 
lent for tiieir relinquishment of their claim of ri^ht 
to curry their institution into any part of the co'iti- 
mon territorial possessions of the United States. 

This arrangement at once removed all obstacles 
out of the way of establishing a union under the 
Constitution; forthwith everything went on har- 
nioniously and rapidly towards a satisfactory ad- 
justment of every question in the Congress and in 
the convention. Without further delay, it was ad- 
mitted, all around, that the measure adopted, when 
burdens were to be imposed, was no more and no 
le.?s than just, when power was to be distributed, 
and the three fifths ratio was agreed to, in the 
enumeration ofsl.ivesin the population basis of this 
House. The grant of power to Conjress to pro- 
hibit the importation of slaves after 1808, and to 
levy a tax upon them in the mean time, was also i 
agreed to. The South relinquished all claim to ! 
carry slavery into new territory, thereby putting I 
limits to its spread, and consented to allow a limil ' 
to be put to it, in time, by authorizing the impor- j 
tation of slaves to be taxed, and, after a specified 
date, prohibited. The consideration paid by the | 
free States to the slave States for these conces- ' 
sions and restrictions, was agreeing to allow that 
species of property tlie special privilege of repre- 
sentation, and to suffer the reclamation of fiigitive 
slaves. 

But this latter obligation stands in particular and 
special relation to the non-extension of slavery. 
It IS the equivalent paid by the free States to the 
slave States, in consideration of the abandonment 
by (he slave States of all claim to extend their 
slavery beyond their own limits. 
_ The two ideas are inseparably linked to-^ether 
m the ordinance of 1787-. ° 



^rficle ihe sixlk— There shall be neither slavery nor 
involuntary servitude in tlie said Territory, otherwise than 
, in punishment of criini^>5 whereof tlie party shall have been 
duly con vicled: ProvUed uhoays. That any person escap- 
ing into Ihe same, (nun whom labor or service is lawfully 
claimed in any mw of the original States, such fugitive may 
be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming 
nis or her labor or service as aforesaid. " " 

So far as States might rise within the limits of 
the Northwest Territory, the arrangement was 
made unalterable and perpetual by the express 
language of the ordinance. 

"It is herehy ordained and declared hy Ihc authority afore- 
said, That the tbilovving articles shalfbe considered as ar- 
ticles ot compact between Ihe original States and the peo- 
ple and Slates in the said Territory, and forever remain 
unaiteiable, unless by eoinmoii consent." 

The Cim.stitution of the United States impressed 
the seal of its s^mctity and inviolability upon this 
compact by ordaining (art vi, 1st paragraph) that 
"engagements entered into" before its adoption, 
"should be as valid against the United States,' 
under this Constitution, as under the Confedera- 
tion." 

I hold, Mr. Chairman, that no man can study 
carefully the proceedings of that day, without 
being compelled to the conclusion, that the real bar- 
gain, compromise, compact between the two great 
sections, was, that the South would not attempt to 
carry slavery into new territory, and the North 
would extend a certain degree of protection over 
that species of property v/here it 'then was, and 



I so long as it might last, particularly in allowino- 
I the recovery of fugitive slaves within the limit's 
of the free States. 

It is true that but one side of this bargain or 
contract was received into the written text" of the 
Constitution. The reason of this is obvious. The 
consideration paid by the South, that is, the re- 
linquishment of the common territorial posses- 
sions of the Union to freedom, was already fully 
executed and discharged. Slavery was restricted 
from ever entering the Northwest Territory, by 
solemn compact, underlying the Constitution, and 
made forever binding by its express provisions. 
The matter was forever settled and wholly dis- 
posed of, and there was no occasion to insert it in 
the Constitution. But the consideration agreed 
to by the free States, was to find its execution in 
the indefinite future, and v/as to bind them 
through all subsequent time— namely, the obliga- 
tion to suff'er the reclamation of fugitive slaves— 
and that, with propriety, was inserted into the 
text of the Constitution. No one then dreamed 
that there would or could be any other territory, 
owned in common, than the territory northwest 
of the Ohio, and the Constitution contains no 
provision and no authority for the acquisition or 
the possession of any other territory. 

The committee will perceive that the views I 
entertain of the subject, whose history I have an- 
alyzed and spread out to their contemplation, lead 
me to regard every attempt by the slave States to 
extend their institution into new territory, as vio- 
lating and destroying the moral force of the com- 
pact by which the fugitive slave provision of the 
Constitution was made binding upon the free 
States. ' 

The committee will suffer me to say that, per- 
haps, I should not have felt constrained to enter 
into this protracted debate, had I not conceived the 
district which I represent on this floor to be par- 
ticularly responsible for the great compromise, or 
interchangeof equivalent obligations, between the 
North and South, on which, as I have shown, the 
Union and the Constitution rest. Massachusetts 
was represented in the old Congress, in July, 1787, 
by but jwo delegates, both of whom resided almost 
in sight from my doors— Samuel Holten, of 
Danvers, afterv/ards a member of this House, 
under the Constitution, and Nathan Dane, of 
Beverly. The unsurpassed legal learning of the 
latter enabled him to draft the immortal ordinance 
of 1787, in its final shape, as one of the committee 
of five that reported it. He was responsible for 
the arrangement that terminated the conflict be- 
tween the two sections of the Union. Besides ' 
them there was another distinguished person, 
whose name sheds lustre upon the annals of the' 
county in v/hich 1 reside, and the district I have 
the honor to represent; in this House. Manas- 
SEH Cutler, of Hamilton, Mas.^achusetts, was 
in New York, at the time, in attendance upon the 
old Congress, and urging the settlement of the 
territorial question. He had before become deeply 
interested in the settlement of the Northwest Ter- 
ritory. It has been well said, that beneath the 
shelter of the covered wagon, in which he started 
from his village home in ^Massachusetts to found 
Marietta, the imperial State of Ohio was wrapped 
up. He was indeed a remarkable man— having 
adorned, in the course of his extVaordinajy life"^ 
each of the three learned professions. After the 



establishment of the Constitutiun, he became a 
member of this House, from the district I repre- 
eent. As a naturalist and a man of general science, 
he has had few superiors in our history. He was 
truly a philosopher and a patriarch. He was 
more than a statesman. He was the founder of 
a State. The sixth section of the ordinance of 
1787 was, I have no doubt, the result, in part, 
of his exertions; and, as his successor on this \ 
floor, I have felt it my duty to explain it in this 
debate. ' i 

But I must hasten on to the subsequen t epochs in 
our constitutional history at which compromises 



free State, althou,'];h running below 36° 30', but 
made up for it by allowing slavery to get into 
Utah and New Mexico, if it could; andreimposed 
with, as many of us then thought, and still think, 
an unnecessary and uncalled for harshness, not to 
say inhumanity, the fugitive slave obligation upon 
the free States. 

I have now shown, Mr. Chairman, that the 
restriction of slavery in the Missouri compromise, 
instead of being, as some maintain, unconstitu- 
tional, is the very principle upon which the Con- 
stitution was established. The compact, which 
it renewed and extended, is the solid basement- 



or compacts were made between, the two great | story upon which the whole structure stands, 
sections. I shall not enter into the details of the [' The spiritand essence of thatcompactrun throu°-h 
A/I.««m,r. r.^m,.r«,nn;oo_fK.f u.o K..., o„^ ,.,;ii u„ 1^ ,^3 g^^jj-g constitutional history of the country 



Missouri compromise — that has been, and will be 
done, by others. Suffice it to say, in continuation 
of my argument, that, in my view of the trans- 
action, the Missouri compromise was a renewal, 
on another sphere, in reference to a territory that 
had become the common property of the Union 
by subsequent events, of the great compact of the 
ordinance of 1787. It was so not only in spirit, 
but to the very letter. As in the beginning, th 



You can trace the genius and the hand of the 
Constitution, in this feature of our political sys- 
tem, from turret to foundation-stone. The bill 
before us repudiates this fundamental principle. 

A Gentleman interrupting. Then why not 
extend it to the Pacific' 

Mr. UPHAM. I did not mean to say a word 
on that subject; but I must protest, with all pos- 



«.,v ^^ ...V, ....J, ,^,,Lv,.. xio III iiic ucgmiiiug, uic I UM uiai tiuujeci; uui 1 must protest, witn all pos- 
desperaie and well nigh fatal struggle between the |i sible deference to my excellent friend who haa 
two sections was brought to a favorable issue, in li introduced it, that ( am filled with amazement, and 



the only practicable way that is, by fixing a line; 
beyond which slavery could not go, and placing 
the free States again under the bonds of the fugi^ 
tive slave obligation. The bed of the Ohio river 
had been the boundary originally agreed upon in 
1787, as the line, east of the Mississippi, beyond 
which slavery could not extend. 

As no such natural demarkation existed to the 
west of that river, a parallel of latitude was 
adopted; and as Missouri, where the right to hold 
elaves had accrued to actual proprietors under the 



have been during all the debates which have taken 
place upon this question, to hear gentlemen who 
advocate this bill upon the ground of congressional 
non-intervention, complain of us because we did 
not run the line of 36° 30' to the Pacific ocean, 
when it would have cut a sovereign Commonwealth 
in two, and have made an act of Congress ride 
rough-shod over a Slate constitution that had just 
been established. [Applause.] 

So far, sir, from the Missouri compromise line 
being unconstitutional, the principle it evolves is 



...v.,^„ ..„.x >.v.^.ucu Lu «».<.uai [nupuciuiB uuuer lue i ucing unconsiuuiionai, tne principle it evolves is 
treaty of cession from France,was nearly all above!! absolutely demanded bv the very nature of the 
the parallel of the rnouth of ihe Ohio, in order to \\ Federal Union, under the Constitution. As I have 
make an equitable partition, the parallel of 36O30', \\ intimated before, there is not only no constitutional 
winch IS lower than the mouth of the Ohio, was [i provisionforTenitoriesin common, butthey bring 
adopted, from the western border of the Mis- ' our system at once into disarray and disorganiza- 
souri, over the territory ceded by France. The '""- ■'-'' ' " ' 



country above that was then a wilderness. No } 
slave property rights had accrued there, and the i 
adjustment was a proper one, and, in due time, I 
acquiesced in by the whole country. The restric- 
tion of slavery north of 3GO 30', and the fuffitive 
slave obligation, are coupled together in the^Mis- 
eouri compromise act, precisely as in the ordi- | 
nance of 1787. Indeed, the eighth section of the j 
act admitting Missouri, which is the compromise, ! 
IS, imitatis mutandis, a literal copy of the sixth j 
article of the ordinance of 1787. It is in these I 
words 



tion; this is a confederation of two conflicting in- 
terests, free labor and slave labor. Those interests 
cannot possibly be both adjusted to the same com- 
mon territory. That was demonstrated at the 
beginning. The Constitution could not have been 
formed until the territorial question had been first 
disposed of by the ordinance of 1787. If new 
territories come in, they, too, must be disposed of, 
severally, to one or the other of the two interests; 
the spirit that presided over the birth of the Con- 
stitution demands it. In other words, a line of 
division and demarkation, such as the Missouri 
compromise, is absolutely required by the jreniua 



■""• I liompronuse, 13 aosoiuteiy requirea by the geniua 

.dnd he it. further enacted, That in all that territory | of the Constitution, and is, in fact, the only wise. 

jncluded within the limits of" the State contemplated by this li '" "^ way ot the preservation, in peace and har- 
act, shivf ry and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in 
t!ie pimishment of crimes whereof the parties .shall have 



been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever pro- 
Jiiliited: Provided atwavs, Tliat any person escapini; into 
the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed 
in any State orTerritory of the United States, sucli fugitive 
may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person 
claiming his or her labor orservice as al'oresaid." 

Finally, the compromises of 1850 were based 
upon the same principle of a territorial arrange- 
ment and demarkation. They indorsed, in em- 
phatic language, the Missouri compromise, pro- 
jected the line of 36° 30' over territory to which it 
did not extend before, admitted California as a 



,y ot the pr _ , 

mony, of the American Union. 

In another point of view, a line of demarkation, 
dividing the common territory between tliese two 
sections, is required by the nature of the Consti- 
tution. A territory in common is an anomaly 
in our system. That system knows only the 
States separately considered and the Statea 
united; a common territory is necessarily extra- 
neous to, and outside of, the system. It compels 
the Government to operate beyond its appropriate 
sphere. If new territory is acquired by conquest 
or annexation, the genius of our form of 'govern- 
ment requires, to prevent trouble and mischief, 



s 



that it lie at once divided and distiibuted, ac- 
cording to soinie^jus!, arrangement or metliod of 
app;>rtionmeni, to the several members of the 
Coiifederacy;, each Stata to take i!i! share under 
its own jurir.diction, and extend over it its own 
. laws 'di\& insulations. This, however, would be, 

Eraclicrdiy, very inconvenient; the Slates would 
e sejiarated, many of them by wide distances, 
from the districts allotted to them, and free States 
and slave States would be badly mixed up to- 
gether. The only practicable division, in accord- 

' ance with the nature of our system — the only 
really constitutional arrangement, js to draw a 
line centrally across the map. as was done in the 
Missouri compromise act. 

In view of these considerations, ! hesitate not 
to say, that instead of the Missouri compromise 
being unconstitutional, the Nebraska and Kansas 

r.bill is itself in more complete and utter antagonism 
to both the Constitution and the Union than any 

^ measure ever proposed to an American Congress. 
Mr. Chairman, there is more than poetic felicity, 

.there is a grand and siibliine signiPcance, in the 
Sequence of the grer^t ejwchs ■ hat mark cur Union 

■ and constitutional history. As 1 observed at the 

, commencementof my argument, just one hundred 
years ago, in the Congress at Albany, in 1754, 
the first feeble attempt was made of a general 
American union. TliUiy-tliree years afterwards, 

I in the Congress and in the convention of 1787, 
the work was consummated en ;he~basi.'5 I have 
•described. Thirty three years after that, in 1820, 
the sarns great process was repeated by the enacl- 

. Rieatof the Missouri compromise line; and v-jhen, 
just thirty years more having passed over us, 
President Pierce took the oath of ofSce, on the 
eastern front of this Capitol, it was again pro- 
claimed to the world by the American people, 
speaking through his election, as that event v/as 

Tthen understood by those who had brought it 
about, that the conflicting interests of the two 
antagonist sections of the Union were adjusted 
finally and forever. The seyeral successive gen- ; 
eratibns, as they crossed the stage of life, thus ' 
solemnly reaffirmed tiie compact which you now 

'propose to repudiate. Dissent has, in each 'in- 
stance, gradually, sunk to silence, and the whole 
country acquiesced. [Applause.] 

in that spirit we caaie together at the opening 
of the present session. The Representtjtives on 
ihisfloor of the whole American people — w.e met 
as a band of brothers — the mcst harmonious Con- 
gress ever assembled under the ConstituMon. As 
my eloquent friend fro. n Illinois [Mr. Yates] said, 
there was no North, no South, no West, no East, 
but one undivided America. V/e met to devise 
and carry through wise, comprehensive, and truly 
national measuces; to, promote the v/elfare cf 
the v.'hole Union; to develop with for,tenng care 
the vast and diversified, but to a great extent, still 
latent resources of the continent; to spread culti- 
vation and civilization over its central wastes; to 
bring together its opposite shores, linking them 
by the iron rail and magnetic v.'irein near and in- 
dissoluble union; and thus to grasp the com- 
merce of the world, waiting to fall into our hands, 
iC we will but stretch them forth to the Pacific 
coast. Our harmony is turiied into confusion, and 
a, fatal paralysis has crippled our legislation. Never 
did suoh a sudden, never so ruinous a change 
come over the aflfairs cf a nation, a.nd all in con- 



sequence of the encouragement v.'hich has been 
gjven to the renewal of the slavery agitation by 
tliose whose dui)'^ and whose interest it was to- 
have frowned down, at once, the authors of thia 
untimely movement. 

Mr. Chairman, I resist that movement, because 
[ am a i''riend of peace and tranquillity. I believe 
that the only power that can be relied upon to 
bear an individual or a people onward and up- 
ward is the po»ver of good feeling. The law of 
love that rule.s the spheres of the universe, and 
the councils of Heaven, is the law which every 
wise man and true patriot ought to bring to bear 
upon the legislation and administration of hia 
country. Folhiwing the guidance of this supreme 
sentiment, I have done my utmost, in the humble 
sphere in which I have moved, to prevent aliena- 
tion between the diifereni sections of this Confed- 
eracy, and to maintain the compromises upon 
which the Constitution was founded, and the 
Union has been preserved. 1 would have a kind, 
charitable, and generous feeling pervade the whole 
land — the points in v^hich we differ kept out of 
sight, and our thoughts and affections concentrated 
exclusively upon the common glories of the whole 
Republic, and the special distinctive excellencies 
of its various parts. Many of ray earliest arid 
dearest friends have their homes in the South. 
All of us have felt during the short months of our 
acquaintance here, a v,-arm and strong attachment 
growing within us, ahd binding members from 
the most distant lines of latitude and longitude by 
ties of personal affection. Let southern votes ex- 
tinguish this Nebraska firebrand — let southerrr 
Representatives tread it out beneath their feet on 
this floor — and then the amiable, genial, and noble 
process of fraternal good feeling v/ill again go on, 
binding us and the people we represent in the per- 
petual bonds of union, harmony, and happiness. 
Before such a spirit, radiating from this national 
metropolis, and pervading the country, every evil 
and every wrong will melt away. [Applause.] 

But if you pass the bill, or if it is defeated, in 
spite of the combined southern vote, there will be 
an end of all compromises. Some of them may 
remain in the letter of the Constitution, but it will 
be a dead letter; their moral force will be gone 
forever. 

The honorable member from South Carolina, 
[Mr. Brooks,] to whose frank and manly speech 
we listened with so much interest some weeks 
since, intimated that perhaps it v.'ould be well to 
abandon tlie policy i.f compromises, and for the 
two great conflicting ioterests to meet face to face, 
and end the matter at once. I have suggested 
tlie reasons why, heretofore, I have cofttemplaled 
such an issue with reluctance. But if the South 
say so, so let it be. 

Southern gentleman have expressed, in the 
course of this debate, reliance upon a conservative 
class of our northern people, who, they flatter 
themselves, will come to their aid in tliis contro- 
versy. Let me assure them that no such class of 
men can be found nov/. Those persons who have 
been most steadfast in standing by the rights of 
the South, under the compacts, are the most 
v.'ounded, the most justly incensed, at this attempt 
to repeal and repudiate a solemn compromise. 
Heretofore the South has profited by our divisions. 
Those divisions have arise;i/to a great degree, 
from the restraining and embarrassing influence 



of a sense of obligation on our part to adhere to 
the eng.igemenls, and stand up to the bar^jains 
jnade by the fathers, and renewed, as 1 liave 
shown, by each succeeding generation. But let 
those engagements be violated, let those bargains 
b^ broken by the South on the ground of uncon- 
stitutionality, or any other pretense; from that 
hour the North becomes a unit, and indivisible; 
from that hour " northern men with southern 
principles" will disappear from the scene, and the 
race of dough-faces be exlinct forever. 

I do not threaten. I pretend to no gift of proph- 
ecy. Any man can interpret the gathering signs 
of the times. All can read the harid writing on the 
wall. The very intimation thatil;e .Mi.^?Roi,ii-i com- 
'roitiise is propo.sed to be repealed bj' s<iuthern 
\ot,e3, ii; defiance of the p^.)li■:^t of fntiV filths of 
the northern Representatives, has rallied the peo- 
ple of the frecStutesas they have never been rallied 
before. Their simultaneous and indignant prolests 
pour in upon your table, in petitions, resolutions, 
and remonstrances, without number and without 
end. They are repeated in popular assemblages 
from the sea-shore to the Rocky iVlountains, and 
in the newspaper press ofall parties, and all creeds, 
nnd all languages. 

You have uaired the free States, at last, by this 
untimely, unprovoked, and astounding proposal. 
Jf you execute it by the passage of the Ijill, ihey 
will be united forever, in one unbroken, universal, 
and uncompromising resistance of the encroach- 
ments of the slave power everywhere, and at. all 
points, whether north or south of o(iO 30'. Their 
unalterable determination is iieard over the whole 
breadth of the land; rising from the shores of the 
western lakes, the thunder tones of an indignant 
people roll overthecontiheni; they sweep through 
the valley of the Connecticut, encircle the shores 
of Rhode Island — the early and constant homes ul' 
.'"reedom — and the sandy cape of Massachusetts, 
which welcomed the Pilgrim to his first refuge 
nnd rest, and they reverberate among the granite 
peaks of New Hampshire. iVIOunt Washington 
proclaims, and Jefferson and Adams echo it back 
from their venerable summits, " What has been 

PLEDGED TO FREEDOM SHALL BE FREE FOREVKR." 

1 should be glad, Mr. Chairman, to consider 
some other poiiit-; isivolved'in the measure Ijefore 
us, but my limits are nearly reached. 1 cannot, 
however, refrain from saymg a word on one — 
ihedoctritie of congressional non interference — so 
much panegyrized by the friends of this bill. I 
regard it, sir, as the mostanii-republican doctrine 
ever broached in this country, it would bring our 
Government into parallelism with the monarchies 
of the Old World. It would rloihe our Executive 
with the prerogative of Crowns. The sovereigns 
of England granted chaiters,and exercised imperial 
control over subje<U Colonies, without the consent 
or cooperation of Parliament. Our Territories 
are to be placed beyond tlie reach of the reiwesent- ' 
ntives of the people in this House, and the repre- 
sentative.'i of the St>ites in the other branch, so far 
as theyaieiegislator.s. The legislative department 
of ihe Government, is not to have any influence 
or control v/hatever over the infant Repuidics 
about to rise in our boundless territories. T.'iey 
are to be kept under the imperial hand of the Ex- 
ecutive. He is to afipoint, by the advice and 
consent of the Senate acting as his privy council, 



I their governors, judges, marshals, and other offi- 
cers. This idea, gentlemen, is suggested for your 
consideration, as the Representatives of the peo- 
ple of the United States, and the guardians of the 
rights of the legislative department of the Gov- 
ernment. I 

I have but one more duty to discharge. A few 
months since the gentleman from the State of 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Flotrence] obtained the per- 
mission of the House to introduce a memorial 
trom the Society of Friends, in a portion of the 
middle States, in wnic;h ihey protested against the 
passage of the Nebraska bill. The House granted 
tiiat jjermission, though they liad established a 
rule by which tlie memorial should have come in 
in arioiher way. I have been waiting until reso- 
lutions should le in order from the State of Massa- 
chusetts, and> intended then respectfully to ask 
the House to extend to me the same courtesy aa 
to the member from Pennsylvania, and to allow 
me to peiform the same office for the Friends of 
New England wnich t.hat gentleman was allowed 
to perform for the Friends of Pennsylvania. For 
this purpose it was my intention to have asked a 
suspension of the rules. But nov/, gentlemen, I 
will make that memorial a part of my speech, and 
print it as such. 1 feel honored in appearing for 
the Society of Friends, "good men and true," 
peaceable, virtuous, and conscientious, not poli- 
ticians, not identifled with parties, but stand- 
ing on a platform higher than parties have ever 
reached — -ind by presenting, in my place, the fol- 
lovving memorial, to h'lve .^ec ired to the Fiienda 
of New England as respectful and public a hearing 
as has been given by the House to any description 
of the citizens of the country. 

To the President, Si'.n4ite. and Hotcse of Representatives 0/ 
lite United Stales: 

Tile Memorial of liie Represenl.itivcs of the Yearly Meet- 
ing of ilie Society of Friends for New England, respsctfully 
siiowctli : 

TlKit, liting as^sernbled at tlie present time for the di9- 
cliiirgs ol'those duties wliii.'h,as wo l)eliev«,are coniii^ctcd 
Willi th« wcllare oC our religious body, and for the support 
oriliosi; principles and ln^tuiioiiie.^ wliicli aro inculciled by 
the teaclnnys of our adorible i^iiviour nnd liis aposlles, we 
have been dt^cply and t")rrowl'uIly arlected, in view of the 
lulls now nndirionsidcraiion in CongicsM,by which, iu the 
esiaiilishnii'iit of new territorial goveriimenis, it is propo.sed 
so lo li i:i-l;it(: ihat f\:i: nic a (.f our coiiniry into vviiictt 
ilavtry may lit iiilrodiici d .-jiiall bu extiMuUJ. 

It is", we trust, wt'll known to you Hint the Society of 
I'VitMKis tlirongh<;in llic world has long believed itself re- 
quired, as a rcli^idiis duty, to tesiify against .slavery — that 
no (iiiitfan hold liis iV-lliiw-iiinn in tliis bondage aiidieniain 
u niviiiln'r of oi;r isoeiciy ; and iliat we bear our testimony 
a;;aiiist it on rcligiiuis groii ds, il•rt•^pfictive of any pclilic^ 
pariy or organizaiion. 

VVf desire, very respectfully, lo address the rulers of our 
land, and to l>e (lerniiiled, as a religious duty, oarnesily tO 
plead wiUi lli.in not lo saiietinn by any aet of Ibeirvi the ex- 
tension oi ^lavery in our bcHovcd eouncry. 

VVe fervently crave that ilie iiijiinetion of our Saviour "to 
do unto otijer.i as .we would have lliuni do unto us," may 
in all their legislation be f> It lo bo of universaJ application 
lo all cla-ses oldur I'ellovv-inin, and that Ihey may ever feci 
hat it is righteousness lli-it I'xalieth a naiion. 

VVe would not weary yon with many words; but permit US 
to express our (Nirnesl desir>' and prayer, that you may seed 
in V our deliberalions fiir Ihat wisdom which is fioui Hiin 
who liaili made of one hlooil all Ihenalions of men todwcll 
(01 ihe i'aci: oi tln^ whole earlli, and Ihat, aetin;; in His fear, 
J on may, individually and collectively, witness his blessing 
to resi upon you. 

Si::ii (I l)y diieoiirm and on b; half of a meeting of the rep- 
reseniaiives aforesaid, held in Providence, Rhode FsUind, 
i by adjournment, the sei^ond d iv ol the second monl!', ISo-l. 
I ■ SAAIUKI. nOYCE, derk. 



^rhi<iL-^ 



W46 



" O H O 






<0 «.'*° 



'i 






• » ji^ X-/ ^ • * « > ^ . ' « • » . u 









if^-^iL«r-' ■^.\rr , 



oV^^V> 



^°-^, . 






:^^ 






vv. .'?.■* ,^f.,^'^^^ "^^^ ..^ *^ 






V .. -/^ / 






s^ 'sy 







'•> ■<?> ^'• 



, S> r " " « ^^ 



^^. 




4 C 



'k- '^'^J.r^ 






-^o. 



^'i"" 



■>* 






.0 



T^, ^' 



.^ c- .;fe?^^ ^^ 



^V 



»^' 



^•^^ 






H^ 






^^'n <.^^ * 

























" -^"*^^^ V 




-or cA. • &^^ ^ * , 'd- ■<<» 



A° ^ "■• *V^ 








-Ao^ 



.^^ o_ 













■* • o. 



'"•' °- y.-^i'-v co^c^.*°o /.^>.\ , 





A" ,\ 













O > 
j,0 '^ '..1 






• .^^ 














.Vv^-. 










• .* 



.'^*^^^:i•i^/^. ."> >!i^^ ^^. .-^^'^ .•4-.-% ^^ 



-^^0^ 



"> .*Jm;;^*. 



